Archive for May 3rd, 2006

‘Day Without Gringos’ a Flop

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

I believe that the results on this side of the border are pretty much going to reflect the same sentiment. I really am praying to God that there is a way to not only secure our borders, but also to let people come to our country legally. Many may not hear the Word of God at home, so coming here may help that, but also, I still have contend that it needs to be legally. When they are here in that manner, everyone benefits.

The boycott of U.S. businesses dubbed “A Day Without Gringos,” and aimed at supporting migrants in the U.S., appears to have had little impact, the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico said Tuesday.
Monday’s protests were timed to coincide with “the Great American Boycott” in the United States, where hundreds of thousands of immigrants stayed away from jobs and schools across the country.
“Even though we don’t have conclusive numbers, I think there wasn’t a lot of negative effect,” Chamber President Larry Rubin said by telephone from Washington, where he and other business leaders are lobbying for comprehensive immigration reform. “We basically … think it was more symbolic.”
Rubin said the boycott unwisely targeted some of immigrants’ best allies – U.S. corporations that have actively lobbied Congress for immigration reform, including legalization for many of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the United States.
It was hard to measure the boycott’s impact because business is normally reduced on the May Day holiday.
Businesses in Mexico City appeared to be operating as usual Monday, with customers streaming into Wal-Mart stores and McDonald’s restaurants – though there were reports of people passing out leaflets and briefly blocking the entrance to at least one U.S.-owned store.
In some Mexican cities, however, the boycott campaign was felt.
Several hundred pro-boycott protesters in the border city of Tijuana blocked traffic on a bridge leading into the United States, waving flags and shouting slogans and forcing many drivers to turn back. The action converted the world’s busiest border crossing into an empty parking lot for about two hours.
In the central city of Toluca, 35 miles west of Mexico City, a group of Mazahua Indian women entered a McDonald’s on Monday with homemade food, encouraging customers to eat it instead of ordering hamburgers.
The Mazahuas managed to persuade many of the store’s customers to leave, or to eat sopes, a traditional Mexican dish consisting of bean paste, lettuce or onions, and salsa on a thick corn tortilla, local news media reported.
They also passed out fliers urging customers to support the U.S. immigrant protests.

Islamic Bloc: We Respect Press Freedom But _

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

C’mon people, now we all know that if laws and rules were enacted to restrict what the press could say about religion, that the only groups that would be expected to follow the rules would be us Westerners and non-muslims. The muslim press would continue to spew it’s normal “Jew hating”, “U.S. is the great Satan” rhetoric they are so infamous for.
If, after reading this article, you are still buying into the non-sense that typically comes from the self-proclaimed “Religion of Peace” (RoP), then you need to come join us on this planet, the one I like to call “Earth”.

(CNSNews.com) – A bloc representing the world’s Islamic nations is marking World Press Freedom Day Wednesday by calling for urgent action to establish international law or a code of conduct aimed at preventing media from defaming religion.
The Saudi-based secretariat of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said in a statement it was committed to press freedom, but that journalists should be deterred “from premeditatedly vilifying, defaming and violating the rights of others.”
Citing the controversy earlier this year over the printing of cartoons depicting Mohammed, the OIC said the publication of the sketches and its ramifications provided “absolute evidence of the consequences of non-abidance with these regulations.”
It said the caricatures had insulted “a faith embraced and revered by over one-fifth of the world population, and a religion that advocates peace, tolerance and moral virtues.”
Muslims around the world protested against the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper six months ago and were later reproduced in numerous, mostly European media outlets. In some countries, protests turned violent, and people were killed in Nigeria, Libya and Afghanistan.
Authorities in some Islamic countries shut down newspapers and arrested journalists following the publication of some of the cartoons.
In Yemen, the editor of the Yemen Observer will mark World Press Freedom Day Wednesday by appearing in court, where prosecutors earlier called for the death sentence for insulting Islam.
Muhammad al-Asadi was arrested last February after his English-language weekly published the cartoons — in thumbnail size and obscured with a thick, black cross — to illustrate its news reports on the controversy.
Editors of two Arabic-language papers in Yemen are also on trial, and are due to appear in court later in May. Print editions of all three papers have been frozen for the past three months, although the government this week agreed to allow printing to resume.
Arrests or publication shutdowns resulting from the cartoons were also reported in Malaysia, Indonesia, Syria, India, Algeria, Morocco and Jordan, according to the media freedom lobby group, Reporters Without Borders.
In London this week, the OIC is hosting what it says is the first ever major international conference aimed at countering “Islamophobia,” bringing together politicians, diplomats, scholars, media representatives and others from Western and Islamic countries.
Opening the event on Tuesday, OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said Muslims and their religion had been increasingly stereotyped, defamed, marginalized, discriminated against and targeted for “hate crimes” in the West since 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks in Madrid and London.
“In addition to the perceived biased Middle East policies of the U.S. and European countries, the rising trend of Islamophobia is giving a boost to the anti-Western sentiments in the Islamic world.”
Ihsanoglu said the “terrifying stereotyping we suffer from in the first decade of the 21st century … is a phenomenon that reminds us of the horrible experiences of the anti-Semitism of the 1930s.”
It was unfortunate that in some circles in the West, Islam was considered a “dangerous ideology,” he said.
“Misinterpretations of the events perpetrated by extremists in the Muslim world who in turn took ‘Islam’ as a cover, provided ammunition to the supporters of this fragile and misleading theory.”
Of the Mohammed cartoons, Ihsanoglu said the OIC had been trying to explain that “nobody is actually challenging the freedom of expression and press and that the real issue is disrespect” for religious symbols and values.
He said the OIC had expected backing for its stance from European governments, but “to our dismay” those governments had instead supported Denmark.

‘Negative image’
Also addressing the London conference, British foreign office minister Kim Howells said Muslims, and some non-Muslims, had been “rightly offended” by the publication of the cartoons.
But he also criticized some Islamic media for their handling of the issue, saying “the existence of anti-Western and anti-Jewish media and material in the Muslim world, some of it in state owned press, undermined as hypocritical the moral indignation that was expressed.”
Howells said it was right that the issue of Islamophobia was addressed, but Islamic governments and organizations should also address problems that give Islam a negative image.
He cited support for Taliban-type legal and social systems, “recent statements coming out of Tehran,” practices that segregate and subjugate women, and conspiracy theories about 9/11 being a CIA plot and polio vaccines being contaminated with viruses.
“And reports of raped women being punished and stoned, restrictions on other religions, including death sentences pronounced on Christian converts, poor human rights records and authoritarian, undemocratic environments all have a negative impact which we cannot ignore.”
Howells also challenged views in the Islamic world that he said were wrong, such as the perception that “our foreign policy is deliberately anti-Muslim.”
“The reasons for action in Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with the faith of Islam but with the political and security issues that these countries posed.”
He said the Islamic world had the right to criticize policies pursued by Britain, the U.S. or the European Union, “but continuing to blame the West for all the ills of the Muslim world is an act of self-denial.”

ACLU Sues Kentucky for Restricting Funeral Protests

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

Is there any other organization in this nation that consistently takes the side of everything that is immoral and evil? If the ACLU doesn’t have a picture of Satan, in their board room, with the caption “our founder and leader” under it, I’d sure be surprised. The duplicity of the ACLU is amazing; so amazing that I find in virtually impossible to believe that ration people can accept anything they say. The only time they want to support “Christians” is when these so-called “Christians” are hurting true Christianity with non-Biblical teachings. The people of Westboro “Baptist Church” (calling them “Baptist” and “Church” is really a stretch…they are a cult, in my opinion) and the ACLU (what Jen Rast has dubbed the Anti-Christian Litigation Union) are one of the same. Neither one serve the same Lord I do.

(CNSNews.com) – The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit Monday, challenging Kentucky’s new restrictions on protests at military funerals.
The bills, singed into law on March 27, are aimed at members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., whose protests at the funerals of fallen U.S. servicemen have prompted a national outcry.
The Westboro group says God is punishing American troops in Iraq for defending a nation of homosexual sinners. The group carries banners reading, “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”
Kentucky law now restricts protests within 300 feet of funerals, wakes, memorial services, and burials. It also forbids the use of bullhorns in such protests.
But the ACLU said the legislation also prohibits “non-disruptive, non-disorderly speech” as well as visual displays.
“The ACLU lawsuit recognizes that Kentucky has an interest in showing respect and compassion for those who have died in military service and for their families, but argues that sections of these laws go too far in prohibiting peaceful protests,” said a posting on the ACLU-Kentucky website.
The ACLU said it filed the lawsuit on behalf of Bart McQueary, a Kentucky man who has protested with the Westboro group three times over the last few years.
“Mr. McQueary clearly has the right to express his message in a non-disruptive manner, even if others disagree with him,” said Lili Lutgens, a staff attorney for ACLU of Kentucky. “That’s what the First Amendment is all about.”
McQueary, fearing prosecution, is unable to express his opinion, Lutgens said.
The new laws are so broad, according to the ACLU brief, that they could make it a crime to whistle while walking down the street within earshot of a funeral; or to stop for a conversation on a public sidewalk near a funeral home or church while a funeral service is in progress.
The laws may even prevent groups like the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of pro-military bikers, from being close enough to support the families of soldiers who have died in Iraq during military funeral protests.
“The Commonwealth simply cannot prohibit free expression because it doesn’t like certain activities, nor can it suppress the speech of groups or individuals because it doesn’t like the message,” Lutgens said. “The First Amendment applies to all of us.”

Bay State Parents Want to Know When Homosexuality Brought into Classroom

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

Looks like the homosexual indoctrination is going well at schools back east. Now parents aren’t even notified when kids are forced to hear the homosexual agenda. Somehow, in the liberal “anything goes” educator mindset, homosexual stories are not “human sexual issues” and therefore they are not required to notify parents. So if it’s not “human”, just what exactly is it? If I was a homosexual, I think I’d take umbrage to that statement. They just called you “non-human”.

(AgapePress) – A second-grade teacher and school officials in Lexington, Massachusetts, are being sued for refusing to notify parents before their children were read a book in class celebrating homosexual marriage.
Last year, Lexington parent David Parker was arrested at Estabrook Elementary School when he demanded that officials notify him before his young son is subjected to discussions about same-sex “marriage.” And just a few weeks ago, at the very same school, a second-grade teacher read students a fairy tale about a homosexual romance.
Teacher Heather Kramer never notified Rob and Robin Wirthlin that she was planning to read their son the book King & King, an illustrated children’s book about a young prince who spurns eligible princesses to marry another prince, with whom he shares a kiss at the story’s end. The Wirthlins were initially surprised, then outraged. Last week they, along with Parker and his wife, filed a lawsuit alleging that school officials violated their state and federal civil rights as well as the state’s parental notification law.
Rob Wirthlin admits that he and his wife never expected another instance of homosexual indoctrination would occur in the same school district after the Parker ordeal a year ago. “We’re new to the area,” he says, “and we — I think the best way to describe it is — we took a little solace in the idea that certainly they won’t allow this to happen again.”
The concerned father notes that Kramer and school administrators apologized for having offended his family but would not apologize for having subjected students to the pro-homosexual book. He says the incident has led him to consider pulling his son from the Lexington schools.
“We sat down as a family, and we talked about our options,” Wirthlin recalls. “But I believe strongly in the value of a public education,” he explains. “I went through public schools, and my wife attended public schools. I think that as citizens and as taxpayers in this country, [we feel] that public schools are there for all children.”
Lexington District Superintendent Paul Ash and School Committee Chairman Helen Cohen have continued to express full support for the actions of the teacher and the principal at Estabrook Elementary School. Ash has stated publicly that sexual orientation and homosexual relationships do not constitute “human sexual issues” as described in the Massachusetts parental notification law, and therefore he has instructed teachers not to give parents any notification on these topics.

Pro-Abortion Vandals Desecrate Princeton Group’s Pro-Life Display

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

You know, there is a name for people who try to threaten and destroy in order to see that their message is the only one heard. They are called “terrorist”.
So now Princeton can boast that they have a group of Infanticidal Terrorist on campus.

(AgapePress) – Pro-abortion vandals have destroyed yet another campus pro-life display, this time at an Ivy League university.
The student group Princeton Pro-Life had erected a display featuring 347 flags designed to symbolize the estimated number of students who might have been a part of Princeton’s class of 2010 if abortion had not been legalized. After being up just three days, the display was destroyed and signs bearing sarcastic pro-abortion messages were put up in its place.
Thomas Haine, president of Princeton Pro-life, says he finds it very ironic that pro-abortion liberals who claim to be proponents of tolerance and free speech so often display little or no tolerance for pro-life expressions. He feels the messages left by the vandals are truly indicative of liberal abortion advocates’ brand of tolerance.
“Someone had added 30 cut-up coat hangers strewn around on the ground,” Haine says, recalling the damage to the pro-life exhibit. “Our sign was trampled, and there were two other signs attached to ours: one that said, ‘Support smaller class sizes — support abortion’; and the other one that said, ‘347 coat hangers saved from mangling and mutilation.'”
The pro-abortion vandals’ tableau was “a pretty horrific and obscene display,” the Princeton Pro-Life spokesman says. “I can’t imagine anyone laughing about a coat hanger abortion or proposing that these are good things, or anything. To poke fun at such a practice, even if you are pro-choice, seems a bit heartless.”
The purpose of the Princeton Pro-Life’s display with its 347 flags, was to give members of the university community some immediate sense of the number of people they were deprived of knowing because of the “barbaric act” of abortion, Haine explains. He feels the flag display was instigating a lot of positive debate on campus until the vandals struck.
Campus police brought the damaged pro-life display in to dust for fingerprints. However, Haine believes the investigation of this act of vandalism is very low on the police’s priority list.

Attacks Continue on NY’s Marriage Laws

Wednesday, May 3rd, 2006

More attacks on traditional marriage from the “other” left coast. Thank goodness for Liberty Counsel and similar groups.

(AgapePress) – A Christian law firm is defending traditional marriage in New York’s highest court. Florida-based Liberty Counsel has filed two separate briefs at the New York Court of Appeals defending that state’s marriage laws.
In the case of Hernandez v. Robles, a judge declared in February 2005 that New York’s marriage laws are unconstitutional. Judge Doris Ling-Cohen ruled at that time that individuals have a “fundamental right to choose one spouse,” that same-sex marriage “would cause harm to no one,” that there is “no legitimate purpose, let alone a compelling interest” in the marriage laws, and ordered that the terms “husband,” “wife,” “groom,” and “bride” be construed as “spouse.” The First Department of the Appellate Division later reversed that ruling and upheld the marriage laws.
In the second case — Samuels v. New York State Department of Health — Judge Joseph Teresi upheld the state’s marriage laws against a challenge brought by 13 same-sex couples. Upon appeal, the Third Department of the Appellate Division also upheld the marriage laws.
Both cases are now before the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. On behalf of the New York Family Policy Council and Concerned Women for America, Liberty Counsel has filed a brief in each of the two cases. Mat Staver, president of the legal group, says marriage laws in the state of New York are clear.
“They limit marriage to husbands and wives, brides and grooms, men and women, moms and dads, male and female,” he says. “It’s absolutely clear how the laws limit marriage — and it’s also clear why they limit marriage to one man and one woman.”
Staver takes issue with Judge Ling-Cohen’s remark that same-sex marriage would case harm to no one. He says the state has a legitimate interest in limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman.
“[M]arriage is distinct and unique [from other personal relationships],” he points out, “[and] marriage between a man and a woman certainly benefit[s] both the man and woman relationship — but it also has particular benefit to children, to our society, and to the well-being of the state. Every civilized society has certainly based its marital relationships on people in opposite-gender relationships.”
And in direct reference to the judge’s argument, Staver says there is no fundamental right to “marry” a person of the same sex. “Marriage licenses should not be given to two people who simply say that they have some kind of affection to one another,” the attorney says.
The Liberty Counsel leader contends that recognition of marriage between people of the same sex would result in “the abolition of male and female by making gender irrelevant.” And that, he adds, would have “devastating effects on children, [who] do best when raised with a mom and a dad.”